Wikipedija:Nepristrano gledište
Članak je preveden otprilike do pola. Nastavit ću kad budem imao vremena, a u međuvremenu ga može prevoditi i netko drugi ako ima volje. --Zmaj 11:47, 26 kolovoza 2005 (CEST) ---- Ovo je vjerni prijevod engleske stranice o nepristranom gledištu. Ta se stranica smatra službenom politikom Wikipedije. Sve što piše na ovoj stranici općenito je prihvaćeno i smatra se standardom kojeg se svatko mora držati. Osim manjih izmjena, promjene za ovu stranicu predlažite na stranici za raspravu. Politika Wikipedije glasi da se svi članci trebaju pisati s nepristranoga gledišta (NEGL). Kao što kaže osnivač Wikipedije Jimbo Wales, nepristrano gledište je "apsolutno i neupitno". http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-November/008096.html Za smjernice o izradi članka u skladu s nepristranim gledištem prevest će se priručnik s ove engleske stranice. Uvod Politika nepristranoga gledišta kaže da se članci moraju pisati bez predrasuda i pošteno predstaviti sva gledišta. Ova se politika lako može krivo razumjeti. Ona ne podrazumijeva da je moguće napisati članak s jednog jedinog, nepristranog, objektivnog gledišta. Ova politika kaže da moramo pošteno predstaviti sve strane u raspravi, te da naš članak ne smije izjaviti, podrazumijevati ili insinuirati da je neka strana u pravu. Ključno je da Wikipedisti surađuju kako bi članci bili nepristrani. To je jedna od velikih zasluga Wikipedije. Pisanje nepristranog teksta je umijeće koje zahtijeva vježbu. Suradnici koji su savladali vještinu NEGL-a mogu doprinositi razvitku priručnika o nepristranosti. Temeljni pojam nepristranosti Mi u Wikipediji koristimo izraze "nepristranost" i "nepristrano gledište" na precizan način koji se razlikuje od općeg shvaćanja: :Nepristrani članci pošteno opisuju rasprave, a ne zastupaju nijednu stranu u raspravi. S obzirom da sve članke uređuju ljudi, to je teško, jer su ljudi po svojoj naravi pristrani. Prvi opis NEGL-a Opća enciklopedija je zbirka obrađenog znanja koje se predstavlja s nepristranog gledišta. Koliko god je to moguće, enciklopedijski tekstovi moraju paziti da ne zauzimaju nikakav stav '''osim' stava nepristranog gledišta.'' Nepristrano gledište nastoji predstaviti pojmove i činjenice na takav način da se i pristaše i protivnici mogu složiti. Naravno, stopostotno slaganje nije moguće; u svijetu ima ideologa koji neće prihvatiti nikakav opis koji se razlikuje od gledišta koje nameću oni sami. Možemo samo tražiti takvu vrstu pisanja koja je po volji općenito razboritim ljudima koji se eventualno ne slažu oko određenih točaka. Evo nekih primjera koji oslikavaju ono što želim reći. 1. Enciklopedijski članak ne smije tvrditi da su korporacije leglo kriminala, iako autor vjeruje da je tako. Umjesto toga, članak treba iznijeti činjenicu da to smatraju ''neki ljudi, navesti njihove razloge, a onda iznijeti i što kaže druga strana.'' 2. Enciklopedijski članak ne smije tvrditi da je neregulirani kapitalizam najbolji društveni sustav. ... Umjesto toga, članak treba iznijeti argumente onih koji zastupaju to gledište, kao i argumente ljudi koji se ne slažu s tim gledištem. Možda je najlakše pisati na enciklopedijski način ako pišete o onome ''što ljudi vjeruju, a ne o onome što jest. Ako vam to izgleda kao nekakva subjektivnost, kolektivnost ili imperijalizam, pitajte me o tome, jer mislim da griješite. Ono što ljudi vjeruju je pitanje objektivne činjenice, a to možemo vrlo lako iznijeti s nepristranog gledišta.'' ''--Jimbo Wales, osnivač Wikipedije'' Zašto Wikipedia treba biti nepristrana? Wikipedia je opća enciklopedija, što znači da iznosi ljudsko znanje na određenoj općoj razini. Ali ljudska se bića ne slažu oko konkretnih slučajeva. U svakoj temi gdje postoje različita gledišta, svako gledište predstavlja različitu predodžbu o onome što je istina, a u mjeri u kojoj je to gledište suprotstavljeno drugim gledištima, njegovi pristaše smatraju da su druga gledišta kriva i da zato nisu znanje. Kad postoji neslaganje oko istine, postoji i neslaganje oko onoga što sačinjava znanje. Wikipedia funkcionira zato što se stvara zajednički; ali, dok surađujemo, kako da riješimo problem beskrajnih "ratova ispravaka" u kojima jedna osoba napiše da vrijedi p'', a iduća osoba promijeni tekst tako da vrijedi ''ne-p? To se može riješiti tako da prihvatimo, u svrhu rada na Wikipediiji, kako "ljudsko znanje" uključuje sve različite značajne teorije o svim različitim temama. Imamo cilj predstaviti ljudsko znanje u tom smislu. To je svakako dobro utemeljeni smisao riječi "znanje"; u tom smislu, ono što se "zna" neprestano se mijenja kako prolazi vrijeme, a kad koristimo riječ "znati", često je stavljamo pod navodnike. U srednjem smo vijeku "znali" da demoni izazivaju bolesti. Danas "znamo" nešto drugo. Mogli bismo sažeti ljudsko znanje (u tom smislu) na pristran način, tako da iznesemo niz teorija o temi T, a onda ustvrdimo da istina o temi T glasi "tako i tako". Ali morate uzeti u obzir da je Wikipedija međunarodni projekt suradnje. Među našim autorima i čitateljima može se naći gotovo svako mišljenje o gotovo svakoj temi. Kako bi se izbjegli beskonačni ratovi ispravaka, možemo se dogovoriti da pošteno iznesemo svaki od značajnih pogleda na temu i da ne ustvrdimo ni za jednoga od njih da je jedini ispravan. Tako članak postaje "nepristran" ili "neutralan" u smislu koji ovdje iznosimo. Kad se piše s nepristranog gledišta, predstavljaju se kontroverzna pitanja bez zauzimanja strana; da bi se to učinilo, obično je dovoljno predstaviti sukobljene stavove na način koji je manje-više prihvatljiv njihovim pristašama, kao i pridružiti stavove njihovim pristašama. Umjesto da se ostvaruju, sukobi se u Wikipediji opisuju. Ovo je ukratko glavni razlog za ovu politiku: Wikipedija je enciklopedija, zbirka ljudskog znanja. Ali s obzirom da je Wikipedija međunarodno pomagalo koje gradi zajednica, ne možemo očekivati da će se suradnici slagati u svim slučajevima, pa čak ni u većini slučajeva, oko onoga što čini znanje u uskom smislu. Prema tome, možemo usvojiti općenitiji smisao "ljudskog znanja" prema kojem razne sukobljene teorije čine ono što zovemo "znanjem". Trebamo se potruditi, i pojedinačno i zajednički, da predstavimo te sukobljene stavove na pošten način, ne zastupajući nijedan od njih, uz ogradu da se stavovi koje zastupa sitna manjina ne smiju predstavljati kao da su gledišta važne manjine, a ponekad se uopće ne trebaju navoditi. Postoji još jedan razlog zašto se trebamo obvezati da ćemo slijediti ovu politiku. Kad je čitateljima jasno da ne očekujemo od njih da usvoje neko određeno mišljenje, oni mogu slobodno odlučiti sami, čime se potiče intelektualna neovisnost. Totalitarne vlade i dogmatske ustanove u cijelom svijetu mogle bi biti protiv Wikipedije, ako se uspijemo držati svoje politike nepristranosti: predstavljanje mnogih sukobljenih teorija u širokom rasponu tema pokazuje da mi, stvaratelji Wikipedije, vjerujemo sposobnosti čitatelja da sami donose vlastito mišljenje. Tekstovi koji pošteno predstavljaju više gledišta, ne tražeći od čitatelja da prihvati ijedno od njih, djeluju oslobađajuće. Nepristranost se bori protiv dogmatizma, a gotovo će se svi koji rade na Wikipediji složiti da je to dobro. Što je nepristrano gledište? Ono što mislimo pod tim izrazom nije samo po sebi razumljivo, pa se lako može krivo shvatiti. Postoje mnoga druga valjana tumačenja riječi "nepristrano" i "neutralno". Pojam "nepristranog pisanja" koji slijedi politika Wikipedije jest "predstavljati sukobljene stavove bez njihova zastupanja". To zahtijeva dodatno objašnjenje, koje slijedi. Kao prvo i najvažnije, razmislite što znači kad kažemo da nepristrano pisanje predstavlja sukobljene stavove bez njihova zastupanja. Nepristrano pisanje ne predstavlja samo najrašireniji stav, niti ne tvrdi da je samo najraširenijistav točan nakon što je predstavilo sve stavove, niti ne tvrdi da je nekakav "srednji stav" među različitim stavovima ispravan. Predstavljanje svih gledišta kaže manje-više da p''-ovci vjeruju u ''p, dok q''-ovci vjeruju u ''q, i da rasprava trenutačno stoji na tome. U idealnom slučaju, predstavljanje svih gledišta daje i široku pozadinu o tome tko vjeruje u p'', a tko u ''q, i zašto, te koje je gledište raširenije (pazeći da raširenost ne izjednači s točnošću). Detaljni bi članci također mogli predstavljati kako p''-ovci i ''q-ovci gledaju jedni na druge, čime se svakoj strani omogućuje da iznese svoje najbolje argumente protiv one druge, ali se brižno suzdržava od izjave o tome tko je pobijedio u raspravi. Ovdje treba objasniti jednu stvar. Rekli smo da nepristrano gledište, za razliku od onoga što bi se moglo pomisliti, nije neko konkretno gledište koje je "nepristrano" ili "umjereno" u odnosu na druge stavove. Ovo je posebno shvaćanje onoga što znači "nepristrano gledište". U Wikipediji prevladava stav da nepristrano gledište nije uopće nikakvo gledište, nego, prema našem shvaćanju, kad čovjek piše nepristrano, vrlo je pažljiv da ne napiše (ili podrazumijeva, natukne, navede čitatelja da vjeruje) da je ijedno gledište ispravno. Recimo još nešto. Nepristrano pisanje može se objasniti i kao predstavljanje rasprava, njihovo opisivanje, umjesto da se sudjeluje u njima. Nepristrano se pisanje može zamisliti kao hladan, pošten, analitički opis rasprave. Naravno, može se posumnjati da je to uopće moguće a da se nekako ne podrazumijeva ili daje na znanje da je samo jedan stav ispravan. Ipak, iskusni sveučilišni profesori, polemički pisci i govornici znaju vidjeti predrasude, kako svoje tako i tuđe, pa će obično prepoznati raspravu koja je naklonjena samo jednoj strani. Ako se odluče na to i budu kreativni, obično mogu ukloniti predrasude. Važna ograda: Članci koji uspoređuju stavove ne moraju manjinskim stavovima posvetiti jednako mnogo teksta niti jednako detaljan tekst kao raširenijim stavovima. Ne smijemo pokušavati predstaviti neku raspravu kao da stav koji zastupa samo vrlo malen dio ljudi zaslužuje jednaku pažnju kao stav većine. To bi moglo dovesti do krivog gledanja na narav rasprave. Ako želimo pošteno predstaviti neku raspravu, trebamo predstaviti suprostavljene stavove razmjerno njihovoj zastupljenosti među stručnjacima u tom području ili među zainteresiranim stranama. Ipak, ništa od toga ne znači da stavovi manjine ne mogu dobiti onoliko pažnje koliko im možemo dati na stranicama koje su izričito posvećene tim stavovima. Wikipedija nije prostorno ograničena. Ipak, čak i na tim stranicama, gdje se neki stav možda iznosi vrlo detaljno, svejedno se brinemo da taj stav nije predstavljen kao istina. :Jimbo Wales, osnivač Wikipedije, u rujnu 2003. napisao je ovo: ::* Ako neko gledište zastupa većina, sigurno se ono lako može poduprijeti ukazivanjem na općeprihvaćene tekstove; ::* Ako neko gledište zastupa značajna manjina, sigurno je lako imenovati istaknute pristaše; ::* Ako neko gledište zastupa iznimno mala (ili vrlo ograničena) manjina, ono ne spada u Wikipediju (osim možda u nekom dodatnom članku) bez obzira je li istinito i bez obzira možete li ga dokazati ili ne. Predrasude mogu biti i nesvjesne. Na primjer, početnici u nekom području često ne shvaćaju da je nešto što zvuči kao da je samo po sebi razumljivo zapravo naklonjeno određenom gledištu. (Zato nam ponekad treba stručnjak kako bi članak postao posve nepristran.) Ima i drugih primjera: pisac članka može nenamjerno promicati "zemljopisnu" pristranost, tako što opisuje raspravu onako kako se ona vodi u jednoj zemlji, ne znajući da se drugdje ta rasprava vodi drukčije. Politika nepristranog gledišta ne želi skrivati različita gledišta, nego pokazati raznolikost gledišta. U slučaju neslaganja, ističu se jake i slabe strane svakog gledišta, ne stajući ni na čiju stranu. Nepristrano gledište nije politika "razdvojenih ali ravnopravnih". Činjenice su nepristrane same po sebi, ali puko gomilanje činjenica ne može biti nepristrano gledište. Ako se u članku prikažu samo povoljne činjenice vezane uz neko gledište, to i dalje nije nepristran članak. Ključni sastojak: temeljito istraživanje Mnogi sukobi različitih gledišta bili bi znatno olakšani kad bi se dobro istražila tema. Činjenice same po sebi nisu gledišta. Dakle, može se lako izbjeći stav koji bi promicao neko gledište ako se nađe pouzdan izvor za neku činjenicu i ako se navede izvor. To je lak način da se opiše određena strana u raspravi a da se ne zastupa njezino gledište. Pritom je glavno da se potrudite i nađete najbolji i najpouzdaniji izvor. Knjižnice imaju dobre knjige i novinske članke, a možete potražiti i najpouzdanije izvore na internetu. Malo temeljnog posla može vam poslije uštedjeti mnogo vremena na opravdavanju onoga što ste napisali. Još treba imati na umu samo jednu važnu stvar: iako činjenice same po sebi ne predstavljaju neko gledište, gomilanje činjenica samo na jednoj strani rasprave , koliko god dobro citiranih, znači da postoji problem s gledištem. Zato se trudite da budete nepristrani. Nađite činjenice koje nisu samo s jedne ili druge strane rasprave, te navedite izvor. Jednostavan izričaj Politiku nepristranosti ponekad izražavamo i ovako: zastupajte činjenice, kao i činjenice o mišljenjima — ali ne zastupajte sama mišljenja. Postoji razlika između činjenica i vrijednosnih sudova ili mišljenja. Kad kažemo "činjenica", hoćemo reći "informacija koja nije sporna". Neka anketa je dovela do nekog objavljenog rezultata — to je činjenica. Mars je planet — to je činjenica. Sokrat je bio filozof — to je činjenica. Nitko neće ozbiljno dovesti u pitanje takve stvari. Dakle, možemo slobodno zastupati što više takvih činjenica. S druge strane, kad kažemo "vrijednosni sud" ili "mišljenje", hoćemo reći "informacija koja je u određenoj mjeri sporna". Uvijek će postojati granični slučajevi gdje nismo sigurni trebamo li ozbiljno shvatiti neki spor, ali ima mnogo tvrdnja koje vrlo jasno izražavaju vrijednosni sud ili mišljenje. Krađa je nešto loše — to je mišljenje. Beatlesi su najveći bend u povijesti — to je mišljenje. Sjedinjene Države su pogriješile kad su bacile atomske bombe na Hirošimu i Nagasaki — to je mišljenje. Bog postoji... ovo je druga vrsta problema. Postoji li Bog jest pitanje vezano uz činjenicu, a ne vrijednosni sud. Ipak, kako je ta činjenica neprovjerljiva, barem za sada, pitanje Božjeg postojanja obično se izražava u smislu mišljenja i vrijednosnih sudova. Kad se kao činjenica izjavi "postojanje Boga je mišljenje", naizgled se posvećuje pažnja tom pitanju, ali zapravo ta izjava podrazumijeva da se ne raspravlja ni o kakvoj činjenici (postmodernizam ili jaki agnosticizam), ili da je ta činjenica relativno nevažna (sekularna predrasuda). Wikipedija je posvećena iznošenju činjenica i ničega drugoga. Kad želimo iznijeti neko mišljenje, pretvaramo ga u činjenicu tako da nekome pripišemo to mišljenje. Dakle, umjesto da kažemo "Beatlesi su najveći bend u povijesti", možemo reći "većina Amerikanaca smatra da su Beatlesi najveći bend u povijesti", a to je činjenica koja se može dokazati rezultatima anketa, ili "mnoge pjesme Beatlesa imaju mjesto u Billboardovoj ljestvici sto najpopularnijih pjesama", što je činjenica. U prvom slučaju zastupamo neko mišljenje, dok u drugom i trećem slučaju pretvaramo to mišljenje u činjenicu tako što ga nekome pripisujemo. Važno je imati na umu da se ovo pripisivanje bitno razlikuje od izraza "neki ljudi smatraju...", koji se rado koristi u političkim raspravama. Ovdje se mišljenje može pripisati samo nekoj prepoznatljivoj i subjektivno odredivoj skupini ili, još bolje, nekom imenu. Osim toga, kad se predstavlja neko mišljenje, važno je imati na umu da postoje neslaganja oko načina kako najbolje izraziti mišljenja. Ponekad je potrebno staviti ograde na opis nekog mišljenja ili predstaviti više načina da se kaže ista stvar, i to kako bi se dobilo rješenje koje pošteno predstavlja sve glavne poglede na stvar. (Teološke i filozofske rasprave posebno je teško oblikovati bez predrasuda. To pokazuje i ova stranica, s obzirom da je u prethodnoj verziji kao primjer mišljenja navela tvrdnju "Bog postoji".) No kad govorimo o politici nepristranosti na Wikipediji, nije dovoljno samo reći da moramo iznositi činjenice a ne mišljenja. Kada iznosimo činjenicu o nekom mišljenju, važno je uz to iznijeti činjenice o sukobljenim mišljenjima, i to tako da ne podrazumijevamo kako je samo jedno od mišljenja ispravno. Također je općenito važno iznijeti činjenice o razlozima iza gledišta, te jasno navesti tko stoji iza tih gledišta. (Često je najbolje navesti istaknutog predstavnika nekog gledišta.) Poštenje i srdačnost Ako želimo pošteno opisivati rasprave, moramo predstavljati sukobljene poglede uvijek dobronamjerno i srdačno. Mnogi članci završe kao pristrani komentari iako predstavljaju oba gledišta. Čak i kad se neka tema predstavlja kroz činjenice, a ne mišljenja, članak još može zračiti can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section. We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, on the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail. Characterizing opinions of people's work A special case is the expression of aesthetic opinions. Wikipedia articles about art, artists, and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have tended toward the effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia. We might not be able to agree that so-and-so is the greatest guitar player in history, but it may be important to describe how some artist or some work has been received by the general public or by prominent experts. Providing an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations or references to notable individuals holding that interpretation, is appropriate. For instance, that Shakespeare is widely acknowledged as one of the greatest playwrights of the English language is a bit of knowledge that one should learn from an encyclopedia. However, in the interests of neutrality, one should also learn that a number of reputable scholars argue that there is a strong case to make that the author of much of the work still attributed to Shakespeare was his contemporary Christopher Marlowe. Notice, determining how some artist or work has been received publicly or critically might require research; but that reception, unlike the idiosyncratic opinion of the Wikipedia article writer, is an opinion that really matters. A consequence: writing for the enemy Those who constantly attempt to advocate their views on politically charged topics, and who seem not to care about whether other points of view are represented fairly, are violating the non-bias policy ("write unbiasedly"). But the policy also entails that it is our job to speak for the other side, and not just avoid advocating our own views. If we don't commit ourselves to doing that, Wikipedia will be weaker for it. We should all be engaged in explaining each other's points of view as sympathetically as possible. In saying this, we are spelling out what might have been obvious from an initial reading of the policy. If each of us is permitted to contribute biased stuff, then how is it possible that the policy is ever violated? The policy says, "Go thou and write unbiasedly". If that doesn't entail that each of us should fairly represent views with which we disagree, then what does it mean? Maybe you think it means, "Represent your own view fairly, and let others have a say." But consider, if we each take responsibility for the entire article when we hit "save", then when we make a change that represents our own views but not contrary views, or represents contrary views unfairly or incompletely, surely we are adding bias to Wikipedia. Does it make sense not to take responsibility for the entire article? Does it make sense to take sentences and say, "These are mine"? Perhaps, but in a project that is so strongly and explicitly committed to neutrality, that attitude seems out of place. The other side might very well find your attempts to characterize their views substandard, but it's the thought that counts. In resolving disputes over neutrality issues, it's far better that we acknowledge that all sides must be presented fairly, and make at least a college try at presenting the other sides fairly. That will be appreciated much more than not trying at all. "Writing for the enemy" might make it seem as if we were adding deliberately flawed arguments to Wikipedia, which would be a very strange thing to do. But it's better to view this (otherwise puzzling) behavior as adding the best (published) arguments of the opposition, citing some prominent person who has actually made the argument in the form in which you present it, and stating them as sympathetically as possible. Academics, e.g., philosophers, do this all the time. Always cite your sources, and make sure your sources are reputable, and you won't go far wrong. An example It might help to consider an example of a biased text and how Wikipedians have rendered it at least relatively unbiased. On the abortion page, early in 2001, some advocates had used the page to exchange barbs, being unable to agree about what arguments should be on the page and how the competing positions should be represented. What was needed — and what was added — was an in-depth discussion of the different positions about the moral and legal aspects of abortion at different times. This discussion of the positions was carefully crafted so as not to favor any one of the positions outlined. This made it easier to organize and understand the arguments surrounding the topic of abortion, which were then presented sympathetically, each with its strengths and weaknesses. There are numerous other success stories of articles that began life as virtual partisan screeds but were nicely cleaned up by people who concerned themselves with representing all views clearly and sympathetically. Another example Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article: :You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources. Objections and clarifications What follows is a list of common objections, or questions, regarding Wikipedia's non-bias policy, followed by replies. There's no such thing as objectivity Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that. So how can we take the "neutrality" policy seriously? Neutrality, lack of bias, isn't possible. This is probably the most common objection to the neutrality policy. It also reflects the most common misunderstanding of the policy. The misunderstanding is that the policy says something about the possibility of objectivity. It simply does not. In particular, the policy does not say that there even is such a thing as objectivity, a "view from nowhere" (in Thomas Nagel's phrase)--such that articles written from that point of view are consequently objectively true. That isn't the policy and it is not our aim! Rather, we employ a different understanding of "neutral" and "unbiased" than many might be used to. The policy is simply that we should characterize disputes rather than engage in them. To say this is not to say anything contentious, from a philosophical point of view; indeed, this is something that philosophers are doing all the time. Sophisticated relativists will immediately recognize that the policy is perfectly consistent with their relativism. If there's anything possibly contentious about the policy along these lines, it is the implication that it is possible to characterize disputes fairly, so that all the major participants will be able to look at the resulting text, agreeing that their views are presented sympathetically and as completely as possible (within the context of the discussion). It is an empirical question, not a philosophical one, whether this is possible; and that such a thing is indeed possible is evident simply by observing that such texts are being written daily by the most capable academics, encyclopedists, textbook writers, and journalists. This should not be construed to mean that there can be no objective truth in an encyclopedia, in the sense that easily obtainable documents should be quoted or referenced correctly when first-hand sources are available, even if there are second-hand sources which quote them incorrectly. Neutrality does not compel us to introduce inaccuracy when something can be directly verified. Neutrality dictates that there can be multiple prominent interpretations to the meaning or validity of a work, but often the contents can be objectively verified, especially in the case of modern documents. Pseudoscience How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention? If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly. Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article. There is a minority of Wikipedians who feel so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoscience. Religion NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. One important task for encyclopedias is to explain things. In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices came to be and took shape. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts. But Wikipedia articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical and scientific sources. Many adherents of a religion will object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith, claiming that this somehow discriminates against their religious beliefs. They would prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it, which is often from a non-historical perspective (e.g. the way things are is the way things have always been; any differences are from heretical sects that don't represent the real religion.) Their point of view must be mentioned, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that we say something like this: Many adherents of this faith believe X, which they believe that members of this group have always believed; however, due to the acceptance of some findings (say which) by modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z. An important note on using the term "fundamentalism". Please see the article on fundamentalism for the technical definition of this term. This word is often used in articles on religion, but should only be used in one of its technical senses. We should take care to explain what we mean by this term in order to avoid: (a) causing unnecessary offense, and (b) misleading the reader (most people being unaware of how this word should be used.) We should not use this term as a pejorative phrase. As religion is a controversial topic, be prepared to see some of these articles edited due to what may seem minor quibbles. Morally offensive views What about views that are morally offensive to most Westerners, such as racism, sexism, and Holocaust denial, that some people actually hold? Surely we are not to be neutral about ''them?'' We can certainly include long discussions that present our moral repugnance to such things; in doing so, we can maintain a healthy, consistent support for the neutral point of view by attributing the view to prominent representatives or to some group of people. Others will be able to make up their own minds and, being reasonable, surely come around to our view. Those who harbor racism, sexism, etc., will not be convinced to change their views based on a biased article, which only puts them on the defensive; on the other hand, if we make a concerted effort to apply our non-bias policy consistently, we might give those with morally repugnant beliefs insight that will change those views. On the one hand, Wikipedia does not officially take a stand even on such obvious issues, but on the other, it should not look as though we (the authors of Wikipedia) had accorded equal credibility to morally repugnant views. Given that the authors of Wikipedia represent a rough cross-section of the educated public, our readers can expect us to have a similar cross-section of opinion about extremism: most of us abhor it. Giving "equal validity" But wait. I find the optimism about science vs. pseudo-science to be baseless. History has shown that pseudo-science can beat out facts, as those who rely on pseudo-science use lies, slander, innuendo and numerical majorities of its followers to force their views on anyone they can. If this project gives equal validity to those who literally claim that the Earth is flat, or those who claim that the Holocaust never occurred, the result is that it will (inadvertently) legitimize and help promote that which only can be termed evil. Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them qua encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth. See this humorous illustration of the "equal validity" issue. Anglo-American focus Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to the neutral point of view? Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective. The presence of articles written from a United States or British perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and British citizens working on the project, which in turn is a reflection of the fact that so many of them are online. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration from people from other countries. But rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter. This is not only a problem in the English Wikipedia. The French Language Wikipedia may reflect a French bias, the Japanese Wikipedia may reflect a Japanese bias, and so on. Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem? In many cases, yes. Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly. There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people on board who know about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of the biased material will not be induced to change it, we have sometimes taken to removing the text to the talk page itself (but not deleting it entirely). But the latter should be done more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased. Dealing with biased contributors I agree with the nonbias policy but there are some here who seem completely, irremediably biased. I have to go around and clean up after them. What do I do? Unless the case is really egregious, maybe the best thing is to call attention to the problem publicly, pointing the perpetrators to this page (but politely — one gets more flies with honey) and asking others to help. See Dispute resolution for more ideas. There must surely be a point beyond which our very strong interest in being a completely open project is trumped by the interest the vast majority of our writers have, in being able to get work done without constantly having to fix the intrusions of people who do not respect our policy. Avoiding constant disputes How can we avoid constant and endless warfare over neutrality issues? The best way to avoid warfare over bias is to remember that most of us are reasonably intelligent, articulate people here, or we wouldn't be working on this and caring so much about it. We have to make it our goal to understand each others' perspectives and to work hard to make sure that those other perspectives are fairly represented. When any dispute arises as to what the article should say, or what is true, we must not adopt an adversarial stance; we must do our best to step back and ask ourselves, "How can this dispute be fairly characterized?" This has to be asked repeatedly as each new controversial point is stated. It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all-comers; it is our job to work together, mainly adding new content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides. Making necessary assumptions What about the case where, in order to write any of a long series of articles on some general subject, we must make some controversial assumptions? That's the case, e.g., in writing about evolution. Surely we won't have to hash out the evolution-vs.-creationism debate on every such page? No, surely not. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology, but also philosophy, history, physics, etc. It is difficult to draw up general principles on which to rule in specific cases, but the following might help: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if an assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page. Some brief, unobtrusive pointer might be apropos, however. E.g., in an article about the evolutionary development of horses, we might have one brief sentence to the effect that some creationists do not believe that horses (or any other animals) underwent any evolution, and point the reader to the relevant article. If there is much specific argumentation on some particular point, it might be placed on a special page of its own. Writing for the "enemy" POV I'm not convinced by what you say about "writing for the enemy." I don't want to write for the enemy. Most of them rely on stating as fact many things which are demonstrably false. Are you saying that, to be neutral in writing an article, I must ''lie, in order to represent the view I disagree with?'' This is a misunderstanding of what the neutrality policy says. You aren't claiming anything, except to say, "So-and-so argues that ____________, and therefore, ___________." This can be done with a straight face, with no moral compunctions, because you are attributing the claim to someone else. It's worth observing that scholars are trained so that, even when trying to prove a point, counter-arguments are included, so that they can explain why the counter-arguments fail. This can be a particularly touchy subject, and a large number of people can honestly fail to see the bias inherent in a popular term, simply because its the one commonly used. But it shouldn't take long to understand that the English wikipedia is a highly international project, and its editors reflect many different points of view. Its important to note that this level of objectivity is rather new to most people, and disputes over the proper terms may simply depend on the balance of points of view. Other objections I have some other objection. Where should I ask it? Before asking it, please review the links below. Many issues surrounding the neutrality policy have been covered before very extensively. If you have some new contribution to make to the debate, you could try Talk:Neutral point of view, or bring it up on the Wikipedia-l mailing list. Poveznice na englesku Wikipediju * NPOV tutorial * Examples * Examples Debate * Understand Bias * List of controversial issues * Words to avoid * w:en:Talk:Creationism * meta:Positive tone * w:en:Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles * w:en:God's Eye View * w:en:consensus reality * w:en:Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms * w:en:Template:NPOV - za problematične članke * w:en:Template:NPOV-section - samo za jedan odlomak * w:en:Template:POV check - za članke koji bi mogli biti pristrani. w:en:Template:bias (to je kraći oblik) * WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias Vanjske poveznice * AssumeGoodFaith i * NeutralPointOfView, oba na MeatballWiki. * Blinded By Science: How ‘Balanced’ Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality - Chris Mooney, Columbia Journalism Review. Upozorenje Wikipedijancima kako pokušaji stvaranja uravnoteženih vijesti mogu dovesti do pristranih, netočnih i zastranjujućih izvješća. Napomena Članci čija je nepristranost osporena, obilježe se predloškom uz precizno obrazloženje na stranici za razgovor. To je obvezno za neprijavljene suradnike, ali toga bi se trebali pridržavati i prijavljeni suradnici (administratori mogu obrisati predložak NPOV postavljen bez obrazloženja). Nepristrano gledište af:Wikipedia:Neutrale standpunt an:Wikipedia:Neutralidat d'o punto d'embista ar:ويكيبيديا:وجهة النظر المحايدة ast:Uiquipedia:Puntu de vista neutral be:Вікіпедыя:Нейтральны пункт гледжання bg:Уикипедия:Неутрална гледна точка bn:উইকিপেডিয়া:নিরপেক্ষ দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি টিউটোরিয়াল br:Wikipedia:Kumuniezh/Chom neptu bs:Wikipedia:Neutralno gledište ca:Viquipèdia:Punt de vista neutral co:Wikipedia:Puntu di vista neutru cs:Wikipedie:Nezaujatý úhel pohledu csb:Wiki:Neùtralny pùnkt zdrzeniégò da:Wikipedia:Skriv Wikipedia fra et neutralt synspunkt de:Wikipedia:Neutraler Standpunkt el:Βικιπαίδεια:Ουδετερότητα en:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view eo:Vikipedio:Neŭtrala vidpunkto es:Wikipedia:Punto de vista neutral eu:Wikipedia:Ikuspegi neutrala fa:ویکی‌پدیا:دیدگاه بی‌طرف fi:Wikipedia:Neutraali näkökulma fiu-vro:Wikipedia:Eräpoolõlda saisukotus fr:Wikipédia:Neutralité de point de vue fy:Wikipedy:Objektivens gl:Wikipedia:Punto de vista neutral he:ויקיפדיה:נקודת מבט נייטרלית hu:Wikipédia:Semleges nézőpont hy:Վիքիփեդիա:Չեզոք տեսակետ ia:Wikipedia:Puncto de vista neutral id:Wikipedia:Sudut pandang netral ig:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is:Wikipedia:Hlutleysisreglan it:Wikipedia:Punto di vista neutrale ja:Wikipedia:中立的な観点 jv:Wikipedia:Cara ndeleng nétral ka:ვიკიპედია:ნეიტრალური თვალსაზრისი ko:위키백과:중립적 시각 lb:Wikipedia:Neutralitéit ln:Wikipedia:Neutralité de point de vue lt:Wikipedia:Neutralus požiūris mg:Wikipedia:Fijerena tsy mitongilana mk:Википедија:Неутрална гледна точка ml:വിക്കിപീഡിയ:സന്തുലിതമായ കാഴ്ചപ്പാട് mn:Wikipedia:Төвийг сахисан байр суурь ms:Wikipedia:Pandangan berkecuali nl:Wikipedia:Neutraal standpunt nn:Wikipedia:Objektivitet no:Wikipedia:Objektivitet pl:Wikipedia:Neutralny punkt widzenia pt:Wikipedia:Princípio da imparcialidade rmy:Vikipidiya:Birigyardo jalipen ro:Wikipedia:Punct de vedere neutru ru:Википедия:Нейтральная точка зрения sco:Wikipedia:Whit NPOV is sh:Wikipedia:Neutralan stav simple:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view sk:Wikipédia:Nestranný uhol pohľadu sl:Wikipedija:Nepristranskost sq:Wikipedia:Pikëpamje neutrale sr:Википедија:Неутрална тачка гледишта sv:Wikipedia:Skriv från en neutral utgångspunkt ta:விக்கிப்பீடியா:நடுநிலை நோக்கு te:వికీపీడియా:తటస్థ దృక్కోణం tg:Википедиа:Бетарафӣ th:วิกิพีเดีย:มุมมองที่เป็นกลาง tl:Wikipedia:Walang pinapanigang pananaw tr:Vikipedi:Tarafsız bakış açısı uk:Вікіпедія:Нейтральна точка зору uz:Vikipediya:Betaraf nuqtai nazar vi:Wikipedia:Thái độ trung lập yi:הילף:נייטראל zh:Wikipedia:中立的观点 zh-yue:Wikipedia:中立嘅觀點